Here's Why Libertarians Can't Govern: Rand Paul Blocking Bipartisan Budget Deal and Forcing Shutdown

[NightFox]

You people seem very scared of libertarians. All it took was one libertarian to get elected and the MSM hits that guy harder than they hit Trump.

Which elected libertarian are you referring to?

"We libertarians are not the spokesmen for any ethnic or economic class; we are the spokesmen for all classes, for all of the public; we strive to see all of these groups united, hand-in-hand, in opposition to the plundering and privileged minority that constitutes the rulers of the State." -- Murray N. Rothbard

 

[easyt65]

Good for Paul, tefusing to go along with a deficit-adding budget.

The govt needs to cut its own fraud, waste, and abuse, stop paying for benefits for criminals, and address social welfare programs.

 

[Brain357]

With a strong economy they should be fighting about cuts, not additional spending. Are politicians are cowards.

 

[bodecea]

Here's a perfect example of why libertarians can't govern and can't win on a national scale: Senator Rand Paul is single-handedly blocking a bipartisan budget deal and appears poised to force a government shutdown because he doesn't like the bipartisan budget deal.

By the most expansive accounting, the budget deal will raise spending by about $400 billion over the next two years. That's an increase of just over 9% for two years, or about 4.6% per year, one of the three smallest increases for any two-year period in the last 40 years. But, no, that's not good enough for libertarian Rand Paul. Nor does he care that the budget deal increases defense spending more than it increases domestic spending and that it extends a number of tax breaks. Nope, not good enough.

He wants a chance to introduce amendments on the Senate floor to cut spending. Look, with 49 Democrats and one or two RINOs in the Senate, no such amendment has any chance. This is a waste of time and it's gonna cost thousands of federal contractors hundreds and even thousands of dollars.

This is why libertarians can't govern.

Looking at how much $$ this bill is spending, he had a very good point.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Here's a perfect example of why libertarians can't govern and can't win on a national scale: Senator Rand Paul is single-handedly blocking a bipartisan budget deal and appears poised to force a government shutdown because he doesn't like the bipartisan budget deal.

By the most expansive accounting, the budget deal will raise spending by about $400 billion over the next two years. That's an increase of just over 9% for two years, or about 4.6% per year, one of the three smallest increases for any two-year period in the last 40 years. But, no, that's not good enough for libertarian Rand Paul. Nor does he care that the budget deal increases defense spending more than it increases domestic spending and that it extends a number of tax breaks. Nope, not good enough.

He wants a chance to introduce amendments on the Senate floor to cut spending. Look, with 49 Democrats and one or two RINOs in the Senate, no such amendment has any chance. This is a waste of time and it's gonna cost thousands of federal contractors hundreds and even thousands of dollars.

This is why libertarians can't govern.

Good for Rand Paul. Unlike his wacky father I actually admire & respect him.
Imagine your personal budget was that far over your intake every year. How long would it be before reality bitch slapped you into bankruptcy court?
In DC there is never a good time to discuss budget cuts. Paul is doing what his voters sent him there to do.

GO PAUL!

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Here's a perfect example of why libertarians can't govern and can't win on a national scale: Senator Rand Paul is single-handedly blocking a bipartisan budget deal and appears poised to force a government shutdown because he doesn't like the bipartisan budget deal.

By the most expansive accounting, the budget deal will raise spending by about $400 billion over the next two years. That's an increase of just over 9% for two years, or about 4.6% per year, one of the three smallest increases for any two-year period in the last 40 years. But, no, that's not good enough for libertarian Rand Paul. Nor does he care that the budget deal increases defense spending more than it increases domestic spending and that it extends a number of tax breaks. Nope, not good enough.

He wants a chance to introduce amendments on the Senate floor to cut spending. Look, with 49 Democrats and one or two RINOs in the Senate, no such amendment has any chance. This is a waste of time and it's gonna cost thousands of federal contractors hundreds and even thousands of dollars.

This is why libertarians can't govern.

Looking at how much $$ this bill is spending, he had a very good point.

It's a shame your hypocrisy prevented you from having this stance when Obama spent us into oblivion.

 

[NightFox]

Good for Rand Paul. Unlike his wacky father I actually admire & respect him.

Why do you think Ron Paul is "wacky"? Because he said what he thought instead of what people wanted to hear and actually walked the walk when it came to what he said he believed instead of saying one thing and doing another?

You may not agree with Ron Paul but at least he wasn't duplicitous and hypocritical most of time, which is more than I can say for the vast majority of American Politicians.

If it's a choice between mostly honest, anti-war "wacky" and lying, thieving, blood thirsty war hawks, I'll gladly take the former every time.

 

[OldLady]

Here's a perfect example of why libertarians can't govern and can't win on a national scale: Senator Rand Paul is single-handedly blocking a bipartisan budget deal and appears poised to force a government shutdown because he doesn't like the bipartisan budget deal.

By the most expansive accounting, the budget deal will raise spending by about $400 billion over the next two years. That's an increase of just over 9% for two years, or about 4.6% per year, one of the three smallest increases for any two-year period in the last 40 years. But, no, that's not good enough for libertarian Rand Paul. Nor does he care that the budget deal increases defense spending more than it increases domestic spending and that it extends a number of tax breaks. Nope, not good enough.

He wants a chance to introduce amendments on the Senate floor to cut spending. Look, with 49 Democrats and one or two RINOs in the Senate, no such amendment has any chance. This is a waste of time and it's gonna cost thousands of federal contractors hundreds and even thousands of dollars.

This is why libertarians can't govern.

I think Rand Paul's point was that, regardless of how much the increase compared to prior years, it is more money than we have to spend.
He just wants us to not spend more than we take in. Cut up the credit cards, so to speak.
I did hear the first half hour or so of his speech, and it was pretty sensible, I thought. Although his criticism that the Congress wasn't going to go through and do appropriations separately for the different departments isn't necessarily true. I heard that is why this bill included another C.R. until March 23--so they can go through and do that part correctly.

 

[OldLady]

Here's a perfect example of why libertarians can't govern and can't win on a national scale: Senator Rand Paul is single-handedly blocking a bipartisan budget deal and appears poised to force a government shutdown because he doesn't like the bipartisan budget deal.

By the most expansive accounting, the budget deal will raise spending by about $400 billion over the next two years. That's an increase of just over 9% for two years, or about 4.6% per year, one of the three smallest increases for any two-year period in the last 40 years. But, no, that's not good enough for libertarian Rand Paul. Nor does he care that the budget deal increases defense spending more than it increases domestic spending and that it extends a number of tax breaks. Nope, not good enough.

He wants a chance to introduce amendments on the Senate floor to cut spending. Look, with 49 Democrats and one or two RINOs in the Senate, no such amendment has any chance. This is a waste of time and it's gonna cost thousands of federal contractors hundreds and even thousands of dollars.

This is why libertarians can't govern.

Looking at how much $$ this bill is spending, he had a very good point.

It's a shame your hypocrisy prevented you from having this stance when Obama spent us into oblivion.

We had a recession and an economy on life support. Where were you in 2009? And it was under his watch we got the sequestration and spending caps that attempted to stop budget overgrowth. The Republicans just took away both, is what I heard.

 

[Thinker101]

Here's a perfect example of why libertarians can't govern and can't win on a national scale: Senator Rand Paul is single-handedly blocking a bipartisan budget deal and appears poised to force a government shutdown because he doesn't like the bipartisan budget deal.

By the most expansive accounting, the budget deal will raise spending by about $400 billion over the next two years. That's an increase of just over 9% for two years, or about 4.6% per year, one of the three smallest increases for any two-year period in the last 40 years. But, no, that's not good enough for libertarian Rand Paul. Nor does he care that the budget deal increases defense spending more than it increases domestic spending and that it extends a number of tax breaks. Nope, not good enough.

He wants a chance to introduce amendments on the Senate floor to cut spending. Look, with 49 Democrats and one or two RINOs in the Senate, no such amendment has any chance. This is a waste of time and it's gonna cost thousands of federal contractors hundreds and even thousands of dollars.

This is why libertarians can't govern.

Looking at how much $$ this bill is spending, he had a very good point.

It's a shame your hypocrisy prevented you from having this stance when Obama spent us into oblivion.

We had a recession and an economy on life support. Where were you in 2009? And it was under his watch we got the sequestration and spending caps that attempted to stop budget overgrowth. The Republicans just took away both, is what I heard.

And somewhere you got the impression government can spend their way out of a recession?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Rand Paul was ranting about fiscal conservatism, but he voted FOR the tax cuts, which are themselves budget busters.

 

[OldLady]

Here's a perfect example of why libertarians can't govern and can't win on a national scale: Senator Rand Paul is single-handedly blocking a bipartisan budget deal and appears poised to force a government shutdown because he doesn't like the bipartisan budget deal.

By the most expansive accounting, the budget deal will raise spending by about $400 billion over the next two years. That's an increase of just over 9% for two years, or about 4.6% per year, one of the three smallest increases for any two-year period in the last 40 years. But, no, that's not good enough for libertarian Rand Paul. Nor does he care that the budget deal increases defense spending more than it increases domestic spending and that it extends a number of tax breaks. Nope, not good enough.

He wants a chance to introduce amendments on the Senate floor to cut spending. Look, with 49 Democrats and one or two RINOs in the Senate, no such amendment has any chance. This is a waste of time and it's gonna cost thousands of federal contractors hundreds and even thousands of dollars.

This is why libertarians can't govern.

Looking at how much $$ this bill is spending, he had a very good point.

It's a shame your hypocrisy prevented you from having this stance when Obama spent us into oblivion.

We had a recession and an economy on life support. Where were you in 2009? And it was under his watch we got the sequestration and spending caps that attempted to stop budget overgrowth. The Republicans just took away both, is what I heard.

And somewhere you got the impression government can spend their way out of a recession?

It worked, didn't it?

 

[Thinker101]

Here's a perfect example of why libertarians can't govern and can't win on a national scale: Senator Rand Paul is single-handedly blocking a bipartisan budget deal and appears poised to force a government shutdown because he doesn't like the bipartisan budget deal.

By the most expansive accounting, the budget deal will raise spending by about $400 billion over the next two years. That's an increase of just over 9% for two years, or about 4.6% per year, one of the three smallest increases for any two-year period in the last 40 years. But, no, that's not good enough for libertarian Rand Paul. Nor does he care that the budget deal increases defense spending more than it increases domestic spending and that it extends a number of tax breaks. Nope, not good enough.

He wants a chance to introduce amendments on the Senate floor to cut spending. Look, with 49 Democrats and one or two RINOs in the Senate, no such amendment has any chance. This is a waste of time and it's gonna cost thousands of federal contractors hundreds and even thousands of dollars.

This is why libertarians can't govern.

Looking at how much $$ this bill is spending, he had a very good point.

It's a shame your hypocrisy prevented you from having this stance when Obama spent us into oblivion.

We had a recession and an economy on life support. Where were you in 2009? And it was under his watch we got the sequestration and spending caps that attempted to stop budget overgrowth. The Republicans just took away both, is what I heard.

And somewhere you got the impression government can spend their way out of a recession?

It worked, didn't it?

Ah...no. The recession ended, as all do.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Here's a perfect example of why libertarians can't govern and can't win on a national scale: Senator Rand Paul is single-handedly blocking a bipartisan budget deal and appears poised to force a government shutdown because he doesn't like the bipartisan budget deal.

By the most expansive accounting, the budget deal will raise spending by about $400 billion over the next two years. That's an increase of just over 9% for two years, or about 4.6% per year, one of the three smallest increases for any two-year period in the last 40 years. But, no, that's not good enough for libertarian Rand Paul. Nor does he care that the budget deal increases defense spending more than it increases domestic spending and that it extends a number of tax breaks. Nope, not good enough.

He wants a chance to introduce amendments on the Senate floor to cut spending. Look, with 49 Democrats and one or two RINOs in the Senate, no such amendment has any chance. This is a waste of time and it's gonna cost thousands of federal contractors hundreds and even thousands of dollars.

This is why libertarians can't govern.

For once I agree with you, wtf it's very rare there is a bipartisan agreement and now he holds it up.

Kentucky Derpy

The Libretardian pope, Paul II, is the gutter ball from Bowling Green.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

If by "govern" all you statists mean libertarians do not act like power-hungry tyrants, the yes, libertarians cannot govern.

The entire concept of "govern" is warped by decades of authoritarian statist assholes usurping power and fucking the people in the ass. I would immediately donate and vote for a candidate that promised to ONLY REPEAL shit and get government out of the way.

We, the people govern. We appoint representative to take care of the day-to-day stuff, but they are doing our bidding.

Govern yourselves, people.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Paul is correct though. Rs bashed O repeatedly over spending increases and here they are....doing it themselves.

Trump put it best when he tweeted today that we had to accept some bad spending to get what we wanted, and that we won't get better budget deals until there are more Republicans in the Senate.

 

[Brain357]

Paul is correct though. Rs bashed O repeatedly over spending increases and here they are....doing it themselves.

Trump put it best when he tweeted today that we had to accept some bad spending to get what we wanted, and that we won't get better budget deals until there are more Republicans in the Senate.

All new spending is bad when this deep in debt.

 

[mikegriffith1]

At the government agency where I work, most of the food services contractors could not come into work because their shift started hours before the funding bill got signed; they had to take unpaid leave or use a paid vacation day. These are people who make $10-$15 per hour and get limited paid vacation time.

Maybe Senator Paul can meet with them and explain why he could not be satisfied with holding up the vote for four or five hours and then relenting in time to get the bill passed and signed before midnight so they could have come to work. Maybe he could then write them a check for their lost pay.

Even Ted Cruz wisely decided against blocking the vote. By the first hour of Paul's one-man blocking action, every major news network was reporting on his stunt and was carrying parts of his speech live. After three or four hours, Paul had more than made his point. He should have had the common sense and wisdom to stop objecting at that point to leave enough time for the bill to get to the White House before the deadline so that thousands of federal contractors, not to mention federal workers, would not lose pay and/or paid vacation time.

I have no concern for the federal employees who got furloughed for one day, since they'll get back pay for that day. But the vast majority of the contractors who could not come to work because because of Paul's stunt will not get back pay. When you make $10-$15 an hour in a high-cost area like Northern Virginia and are squeezing by paycheck to paycheck, missing a day's pay is a big deal.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Paul is correct though. Rs bashed O repeatedly over spending increases and here they are....doing it themselves.

Trump put it best when he tweeted today that we had to accept some bad spending to get what we wanted, and that we won't get better budget deals until there are more Republicans in the Senate.

Got to love how the Repubs refuse to accept any responsibility at all even when they have majorities in both houses of congress and they control the White House...and yet still it is all the Dems fault.

Fucking 1st grade mentality.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Got to love how the Repubs refuse to accept any responsibility at all even when they have majorities in both houses of congress and they control the White House...and yet still it is all the Dems fault. 1st grade mentality.

The first-grade mentality is yours. Do you know what a filibuster is? Do you understand that if your party does not have 60 votes in the Senate, the minority party can block anything? Did you take basic civics in high school?

I'll tell you what: You guys vote for Republican candidates for Senate and give us a filibuster-proof majority, and you just watch us get the budget under control and start paying down the debt. You surely know that Schumer and Pelosi have no intention of halting deficit spending or trying to balance the budget.

This argument that "gosh, you guys 'control' Congress and the White House" is juvenile nonsense. You don't "control" the Senate unless you have 60 votes when the minority party is willing to filibuster anything they don't like. No bill gets out of Congress and on the President's desk unless it passes the Senate. Facts are stubborn things.